The ID and creationism movement often use the analogy of the watch and claim that such an artefact could not have assembled itself,and therefore there must be a creator.

Let us use this argument and see what far we got with it, but now we analyze an automobile.

The ID-er would have no problem claiming that - mostdefinately - the automobile did not assemble itself, but was an artefact of creation/intelligent design.

Let us look at it. So how did the automobile got here?Did some creative mind create the automobile from nothing? When in fact was the automobile created?Appearently this whole issue is far less obvious as we initially thought.

We have to recognize that the current day automobile comes from seperate inventions, namely the charot and the engine, which have seperate histories, and were at some time combined. The original first automobile, which was the blueprint for all modern automobiles has significantly changed since then. Which already shows us that an instantanious creation of the automobile has not occured, but in fact show signs of development, stepwise improvement, diversifaction, etc. Almost identical to what we see in evolution!!!!

So the first automobile was a combination of the charot and the engine. Both can be dated back to previous forms, which also show signs of development.We can trace back the charot to thousands of years back, and where an animal replaced the engine.The charot itself is just the combination of a wheel and a chassis. The wheel itself can be traced back to early tools for moving heavy objects (stones) with the use of rolling trunks of trees or something.So ultimately the invention of the wheel was derived from nature: natural round objects that can roll.Same for the engine, before the benzine motor there was the steam engine, and the steam engine was already invented by the Greeks, but as a toy. Heat water in a pot and use the outcoming steam for mechanical motion.So the invention of the engine can be traced back to the utilization of fire, and fire itself comes from nature.

What does this all mean: even in human society, the term "creation" in fact has no real application, but can be understood as development processes having the same signs of evolutionay processes as we see in nature: stepwise refinement, variation, etc.

The only difference is that humans play a role in it, because they use some intellect to make such refinements, and who utilize these inventions.

I really don't mean to be disrespectful, but: Congratulations, your brain appears to be generally functional!

Some people do like the calming, balancing activity of the scientifically demonstrated calming, balancing act of participating in customary ceremonies, traditions, and ritual acts. Plus you get the psychological benefit of following your instinctive authoritarian leanings (as animals, our residual pack leadership bias).

I'm an atheist, but I really wish I could be a hard-core believer -- I think life would be simpler and make a lot more sense then. Instead, I have to settle with the natural beauty and awe of mere physical reality. I have a few grudges against natural reality at the moment, however, and I imagine I could construct a supernatural reality that would be much more calming.

However, I can't really get past the "why should I believe in your god, when neither of us believe in magic fairies? Or Thor? Or Zeus? Or Invisible Pink Unicorns?"